Net Metering Debate Rages On Despite Calls For Calm

New Hampshire, USA --
Net metering is one of the most emotionally charged issues in renewable energy, and now it's back in the spotlight. A panel discussion at PV America East in Philadelphia last week explored ways that utilities and ratepayers can agree on how to quantify net metering's benefit. Almost simultaneously, a major utility exec's public criticism of net metering is fanning the flames once again.

Net metering policies are in place in 43 states and Washington DC -- a "wildly successful" expansion, noted PVA panelist Evan Dube from SunRun. Two studies released in recent weeks, looking at Californiaand Vermont, calculate that net metering's annuals benefits to ratepayers outweigh costs. The Vermont study in particular takes a broader view of net metering "writ large" and should be a model to use going forward, he noted.

There's a glaring need for generally accepted practices and transparency; for example, how net metering can help utilities defer or avoid transmission and distribution (T&D) investments. Investing in assets to drive revenue growth isn't as attractive anymore, pointed out John Costlow from the Sustainable Energy Fund. California is staring at $12-15 billion in transmission investments, and anywhere from $17-36 billion will be needed to bring Canadian wind and hydro power down into New England markets. Utilities may lament lost revenues through net metering, but cost recovery and avoidance of such massive outlays can be attractive to utilities, the panelists agreed.

Acknowledging tensions on both sides of the net metering debate, PVA panelist Thomas E. Hoff from Clean Power Research urged utilities and ratepayers to diffuse those tensions, focus on the numbers, and at least agree to what criteria can be counted toward the value of solar energy, even if utilities and ratepayers assign different weights to them. Basing the value of net metering can be settled in two ways, he explained: a "cost of services" which nets everything out into a single rate structure, or a "value of solar" in which consumption is treated separately from production. His example of different valuations of net metering compared Austin Energy and MSEIA (specifically Philadelphia); both had fairly equivalent numbers for the "value" of things like T&D capacity, generation capacity, and environmental benefits, but MSEIA added weight to related factors of economic development, market price reductions, and long-term societal benefits.

Another key to net metering is to understand its benefits beyond simply solar. Utilities see great value, for instance, in having instant granular data during a storm outage, showing them what actions would get the most customers back online with the least impact to equipment, noted Costlow. One audience member suggested one value criteria should be time of use; Costlow pointed out that days of increased obligation were also the days that solar provided more energy.

Costlow warned utilities to adapt their rate structures as solar power generation approaches grid parity, likening their situation to how the telephone industry was broadsided by the initially slow encroachment of cell phones, which turned into a warp-speed shift away from traditional land lines.

Still a battle

Despite calls for calm, it's clear there are still very divisive views on the value of net metering. Days ago PG&E's Helen Burt, senior vice president and "chief customer officer," sharply criticized customers who install net metering for solar power, saying "they avoid paying their fair share of the electricity grid they use at night," while "remaining utility customers pay for the fixed costs of the electricity grid and other programs, driving their rates higher." She also criticizes a recent study showing the benefits of net metering, arguing "solar advocates paid for [it] using numbers that supported their position to reach a predictable conclusion," even as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) undertakes its own analysis of net metering.

Not surprisingly, this has incensed net metering users all over again. Run On Sun founder/CEO Jim Jenal calls Burt's op/ed a "declaration of war on solar," "faux populism" and "naked self-interest." Expanding the argument, he ponders if PG&E will further penalize other practices that lower individual ratepayers' energy usage, from installing LED light bulbs to more efficient commercial HVAC systems. "Is that the proper way to cover the cost of fixed assets? Perhaps not, but one thing is for sure, it wasn't the solar customers who designed PG&E's rate structure," he writes.

62 Comments

Time to Break Free of Net Metering; We need A Feed in Tariff policy for Renewable Energy to Soar

"Maybe the electric utilities are right, for a change. Maybe net-metering—the ability to run your kilowatt-hour meter backwards, with solar panels on your roof or a windmill in your backyard–is not the best policy for America, or for Americans. (See related, “As Solar Power Grows, Dispute Flares Over U.S. Utility Bills.”)

But the utilities’ populist appeal to fairness and equality is disingenuous. When did electric utilities ever care about justice–or the poor?

If they are right about net-metering, it’s for all the wrong reasons.

They want to stop solar photovoltaics (solar PV) now. They want to put it in the grave before it takes even more market share from their comfy business. Climate change and future generations be damned.

The utilities are under threat as never before. They see what’s happened in Germany, where utility profits are plummeting as Germans take more and more control of their own electricity generation. Utility companies will be ruined if they let that happen here. So now’s the time to kill net-metering and with it rooftop solar PV while they still can.

Maybe we should let them.

I can hear the howls of derision from the usual suspects: the solar PV industry, the solar leasing companies, and their sycophants in the advocacy community.

Yes, we should fight a rearguard action to keep the utilities and their legions of attorneys fully engaged. In the meantime, while the utilities are busy snuffing out net-metering, we can bypass them altogether and implement a far superior policy that will put a lot more solar on people’s roofs—solar that people can own themselves, independent of the banking industry offering them deals “to good to be true.”

After all, one of America’s most revolutionary energy policies was introduced in 1978 when the utilities were too busy trying to kill another competing industry to notice as the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) passed Congress.

PURPA allowed independently-owned renewable generators to be connected to the grid. Suddenly, the grid was no longer the utility industry’s sole domain. PURPA said you could connect your solar PV system to the grid, but it didn’t spell out how much you would get paid for your electricity.

PURPA laid the foundation for what came next—a policy that not only allowed you to connect to the grid, but that also set the price, a “tariff” in utility jargon, that you would be paid for the electricity you fed into the grid—feed-in tariffs, or FITs.

Feed-in tariffs are the alternative to net-metering and their time has come. FITs have been likened to PURPA on steroids and they are as American as apple pie. It was a crude feed-in tariff that launched renewable energy in California during the early 1980s. In that program, you could connect your biomass, wind, or solar plant to the grid, get paid a fixed-price for ten years, and then get paid a floating price for another twenty. And it worked—spectacularly. For two decades following that first feed-in tariff, the Golden State generated about 2 percent of its electricity from wind energy alone.

Since then, Europeans picked up the renewable energy torch, particularly in Denmark, where last year the Danes generated 43 percent of their electricity from biomass and wind energy, and in Germany.

Germans don’t use net-metering, and yet last year they produced one-fifth of their electricity from wind, solar, and biogas. No, the Germans use feed-in tariffs. They saw what we accomplished decades ago then set out to adapt and refine the concept. The result is a modern system of feed-in tariffs that has catapulted Germany to the front ranks of renewable energy development—rooftop solar PV included.

Numerous other countries around the world have followed suit, adopting feed-in tariffs of their own making. In fact, more countries use feed-in tariffs than use net-metering.

Most significantly, more renewable energy—by far–has been developed with feed-in tariffs than has been installed through net-metering. The International Energy Agency found in a recent study that only 2 percent of solar PV worldwide was installed primarily through net-metering. The numbers are just as lopsided for wind energy, biogas, and other renewables.

What sets modern feed-in tariffs apart from those developed in California during the early 1980s—and from net-metering–is that the price paid for electricity from different renewable sources differs as well.

In the old California system, a wind farm was paid the same price as a biomass plant or a solar plant, even though they were quite different from one another. The same is true today with net-metering. Each technology that runs the kilowatt-hour meter backwards is effectively paid the same price, the retail price of electricity, regardless of how much the electricity actually cost to produce.

In the modern or “advanced” system like that used in Ontario, Canada, wind energy is paid one price and rooftop solar another. Each technology is paid a price that reflects the average cost of generating electricity with that technology.

This approach decouples the price paid for renewable energy from both the wholesale and retail prices of electricity. Feed-in laws essentially bypass all the ideological theory and arcane mumbo-jumbo that obscure electricity rate-setting in the US.

For each technology and each application, prices are determined so as to provide a fair and reasonable rate of return. This enables anyone—anyone who wants to invest in building the infrastructure that will power America in the 21st century–to profit from renewable energy.

It is this simple idea—to pay a fair price for renewable energy—that has enabled German citizens to build and own nearly half of all the wind turbines, solar PV, and biogas plants in the country. Individual German citizens—not their utility companies–have invested more than $100 billion in renewable energy. They have done so because they are paid a fair price for their electricity and because they can install the size, type, and amount of renewables that is the most economic for them and the best fit for their communities.

Net-metering served a useful purpose in the dark days of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton era. Net-metering then was a call to arms for hobbyists and guerrilla solar activists out to prove a point–solar works, your meter will run backwards, and the lights will stay on.

But net-metering was never intended to be a policy for the industrial development of renewable energy. It alone can’t do that. Retail electricity prices in North America are simply too low to make rooftop solar PV, for example, profitable without hefty subsidies.

Why run your kilowatt-hour meter backwards at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour when it costs you 20 cents to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to generate it with solar PV? Without federal or state subsidies, net-metering seldom makes any economic sense, even today with the rapidly falling cost of solar PV.

Net-metering was an appealing policy at one time, because it gave politicians the perfect cover for appearing to take action on the public’s demand for renewable energy, while doing nothing of substance to threaten entrenched electric utilities’ political and economic power.

Thus, politicians would typically set a low limit on the amount of renewables that could be installed in a region under net-metering—often just a few percent. They certainly wouldn’t set the limit at anything like what the Germans (5 percent solar PV) or Italians (7 percent solar PV) have already accomplished.

Moreover, they typically also limit the size of any individual installation, often a paltry 10 kilowatts, and sometimes—when they’re generous–up to 2 megawatts. (We certainly wouldn’t want to rock the utility’s boat, now, would we?)

Worst of all, net-metering limits renewable development to an existing “meter”. This precludes “greenfield” sites that don’t already serve a utility customer, a further restriction on who can use net-metering and how big a renewable project they can build.

With all the restrictions on net-metering, many Americans are prohibited from installing and owning their own solar, wind, or biogas power plants where they want to and of the size that works best for them. Net-metering locks out apartment-dwellers and renters from participating in the renewable energy revolution.

Net-metering is not–nor can it ever be–a comprehensive renewable energy policy. If we take climate change seriously, net-metering simply won’t get us where we want to go: massive amounts of renewables in the ground, and quickly. Net-metering will never give us “plus energy” houses or “plus energy” buildings, because we often literally have to give our surplus electricity to the utility company for free. How fair is that?

Yes, net-metering has served a purpose. And yes, we should not abandon it without a strong comprehensive renewable energy policy to replace it.

But the time has come from Americans to break free of the straight jacket imposed by net-metering. It is time to liberate Americans from the tyranny of utility-company control of our lives and from the politicians and regulators who serve these companies. It is time to free Americans of all walks of life–from rich to poor, from conservative to liberal, from rural to urban—to produce renewably generated electricity when they want, where they want, and in the amount they want—and to do so for a profit. What could be more American?

As the late German politician Hermann Scheer, one of the co-founders of Germany’s modern system of advanced renewable tariffs, frequently said, the time for half-measures–for timid responses–is past. There is no time to lose." Paul Gipe

ANONYMOUS
December 31, 2013

this report is very useful for me especially the statices.
http://www.doinggroup.com/

As a 30 year veteran of the utility industry and a previous owner of a deregulated electricity company that partnered with the now defunct National Energy Group (PG&E unregulated) I am fully aware of the current Public Relations strategy of electric utilities (utilities do not have marketing strategies because they do not compete for customers). The industry is in a very basic and fundamental shift change. Basically what is the willingness to pay for 1 kWh of energy now as opposed to paying for the right to consume an amount of selected energy over a selected period of time. Only a fully implemented nodal pricing system will answer the question. How to get there is for all of you guys to fight about and decide I just wish that we could have a clear 5 years of stable business regulatory risk because all of the other business risks are seeming to be minimal compared to regulation and that is the problem. Keep it simple.

I have no intention of defending manipulative statistics by corporations and advocacy groups but I insist that governments are not bathed in innocence.

"I understand that some governmental agencies have bias and errors in their data - but the methods are also well documented and typically up to peer review."

Arrant nonsense.

I got a call from my mother and sister many long years ago overjoyed that the FBI was reporting that Rome, NY, (the closest town where we had just recently moved) was the safest small town in America.

I told them that the Italians in the area were just sloppy with numbers. I was joshing, of course. I had no knowledge at the time how true my statement was even with the inexcusable ethnic slant. Later events proved that the records had been horrible and even some murders had not been reported.

The FBI checked nothing but simply compiled and reported the numbers fed them by local authorities. It is simply the way things are done. Those statistics are among the most relied on in the nation and even comparisons between years are often dubious. There are endless academic and private studies showing the facts of the sloppiness of the data. I had tended to believe the notion that at least with murders there was the body but even that is proven most illusory.

All statistics must be treated with healthy skepticism and realization that humans are always capable of gross errors if not malfeasance.

Again, saying that official government statistics are often relied on without question is one of the few truisms I accept. They do at least provide a starting point for discussion.

The point Terry, is that if you use stats and numbers that are provided by either energy companies or environmental ngo's and try to introduce that information in public hearings - the commissioners and individuals making the public policy will often discount those numbers.

If you really reseach and back up your information based on the stats that are provided by the various governmental agencies (local or otherwise). The numbers are generally accepted and given more weight.

I understand that some governmental agencies have bias and errors in their data - but the methods are also well documented and typically up to peer review.

Some of the stats I've seen from both energy companies and environmental advocates --- are very cherry picked to tell a story at one point in time. Those stories and their processed stats get copied, repeated, translated --- and the next thing you know there is a legend. Sometimes I've seen numbers so good that you could expect a perpetual motion machine to be bought and sold at your neighborhood store within days.

When I look at stats, I try to find as many different source including the dissenting source to understand why the numbers are out there... quoting stats/stories FROM JUST the energy companies, or just the environmental ngo's is not good.

"The many sites you find with google - or numbers provided by the non-governmentals have bias in them."

As do official government sites.

I won't argue that it is not best to start with official statistics but the errors can be mind boggling.

Many here should be able to remember a time when we were plumb running out of natural gas many decades ago. News broadcasts told us continually night after night that we had maybe on the outside 10 years supply left.

A few wee voices - no, not the crazies but they are usually the most quoted - told of far more. And now we know who was right.

Continue on as you were, Dennis, but it is always hard to find good questions let alone good answers.

I would be VERY careful of using any of the numbers and stats above without verifying them against official records from government or international agencies. E.g. US its the EIA, internationally it would be IEA.

The many sites you find with google - or numbers provided by the non-governmentals have bias in them. Sometimes it is signficant - just as the bias from energy companies can be very strong. EIA, and IEA is pretty consistent and methodically collected with the conditions that can bias it published.

garyrich2000
Tax payers paid for smart meters was paid for with federal tax dollars not by utility
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/08/3-5-billion-in-federal-stimulus-funds-used-for-installing-smart-meters-2458070.html
Taxpayers paid for Nuke plants 50% of federal loans for nuke plants was never paid back,Taxpayer financed
Source Greg Palist old info I couldnt' find on his site but do remember story
Nuke plants Rate payer pays decommission, taxpayer pays for insurance not utility
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/13/nuclear-industry-us-welfare
http://nuclear-news.net/2011/02/25/nuclear-industry-survives-only-with-corporate-welfare/
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/01/bailout-nuclear
that PG&E is charging customers twice to upgrade pipeline was on local news here
i think it was mentioned at CPUC hearing

Dennis/John
My question too
>So the question I would have is how is the lease really >calculated, $8190 total over 20 years, or $8120 each year.
And why sized at 135% usage?
Can't be $8190 year as yearly bill is $2,400
8.2 Kw AC system seems too large for a $200 month bill

>Utilities view net metering as an erosion of the money making >neighborhood distribution networks –
>and they do not account for any increased in the useful life of >the transformers >that might be gained by easing the local loads >with distributed generation.
John I thought sports arena get hit hard demand charge maybe not
I know large customers pay low Kwh price
And residential pay more Kwh
So utilities want to pocket gain and call a loss eh

ANONYMOUS
February 19, 2013

A 10 year payback is still a 10% annual return on investment. Not to many places to safely earn that amount. Stocks are a gamble and saving accounts earn very little.

dennis-heidner, Great explanation on the German FIT. We could and should do a similar program here. At current pricing you could structure a .12 cent FIT and couple that with our current FED tax credit and pay for a system in under 10 years. We are doing this now at the utility I manage. A primary reason net-metering would violate EC law is in the fact that you can't tax consumption and have net-metering. It is precisely the reason we shouldn't be doing net metering in the USA. The metering connection under the buy-all sell-all approach of a FIT is also easier to understand and set rates for. Net-metering is also self limiting when put behind a demand rate structure. Meter an RE generator, be it site based, community based, like any other generation you put on the grid and if there needs to be incentives then apply them as a PTC over a certain number of years. FEC is one of the few utilities in the US that offers incentive rates under a separate meter and we are growing RE. No need for you to explain the details, which are many, because we are walking the talk while many just talk the talk.

Yearly_Lease$ = AC capacity X $0.91. Or $8190 per year X 20 years. Which would be a very good profit for the system owner. Their initial installed investment was probably $40K-50K for a 9KW ac system. That would show simple gain of about $120K.

If you use NPV they still make money but not quite as high.

So the question I would have is how is the lease really calculated, $8190 total over 20 years, or $8120 each year.

I suppose if they were installing the really really low cost Chinese modules and inverters that they could have approached the material cost of nearly $1/W. That would be record setting here in the US.

EVmc, Large wholesale, many retail and business customers do indeed have demand charges. The large industrial wholesale customers (worldwide) often pay just 1/3 the residential rate. The rate structures are often designed to promote and encourage business development.

Sports complex are likely to pay premiums based on time of day, however the grid build out and transmission lines between the points of generation and cities/urban areas must be designed to carry the nearly peak loads from all customers. So with that in mind the comment from PG&E's Helen Burt -seems a little one sided. Yes, sports and wholesale customers be hit with high demand charges - but for most of the time their rates are far lower than the residential customers.

I doubt 100% of residential homes will have solar on them... that doesn't make sense. It is more likely that solar will saturate out at something like one-in-four homes with solar. That means any excess power generated is not likely to back on the transmission lines to travel to other cities - but it will be used by the neighbor using the same distribution transformer - and easing the load on the local neighborhood distribution line.

The contracts with the big industrial customers are often at rates very closed to the cost the utility pays for the power - so their profit margin from those customers is likely to be less. The profit margins from the residential customers is higher - in part because of the expected higher cost to support the neighborhood lines. Utilities view net metering as an erosion of the money making neighborhood distribution networks - and they do not account for any increased in the useful life of the transformers that might be gained by easing the local loads with distributed generation.

I provide complete systems. $0.91 may have been the panel cost per watt, but entire system including DC to AC inversion, mounting hardware, wiring, breaker box, junction boxes and install coming in at $0.91. I can not even do this in the Philippines, let alone in the USA.

John
About a 9.2 AC system? You have to go by AC size
Clean power pretty good calculator for CA
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator.php
figures ROI
at $4.50 W and 6.5% yearly utility increase (escalator)
historical utility increases
17% yearly ROI
at $1 w ROI is too huge for their program calculate, huge ROI
$.91 W install cost ? WOW thats cheap
If you divide what you pay for 20 years by AC system cost
You get $.91 a watt cost?
Lease cost $8190 for 20 years? $34 a month?
Another calculator i think figures for whole country
For solar with EV but can just look at PV part
http://www.wattpeople.com/calculator.php

just roughly I think have right, usually figure bid program not by hand
$200 month bill x 12 = yearly cost/ system cost= 1st year ROI
$2,400/$8190= 29% ROI, if thats lease cost for 20 years
30 year ROI
Yearly cost 1st year plus for 29 years add 6.7% each year/ system cost= 30 year ROI

Dennis don't sports complexes like other large users have to pay large stand by charges and huge demand charges?
Or do they get a deal others don't get?
I've had a couple large industrial customers that paid more in demand charges than Kwh charges
Your saying residential customers subsidize large users? Could be
Here in CA homes in Rural areas customer pays for extending utility line
New construction if 100 yards or 1 mile customer pays
And utility charges about 4 times what a contractor does
Thats on a single home, i don't know how track homes are charged
I think utilities are getting the better end of the deal on net metering
they pushing for even better deal
Solar producers are providing utility with power at peak times, utility sells to their customers at $.11 kwh to $.30 kwh
The utility does not have to produce with expensive power from peaker plant or buy on spot market the most expensive power
They trade back those Kwh from their own plants at their cheapest cost $.04 kwh or less at off peak hours or replace with power from plants they can't shut down at night so operating that plant is a loss.
Looks like utility is making a $.07 to $.26 kwh profit from solar producers

"Prospecting for potential geothermal is a little easier than it was in the early years when OIT started looking at geothermal."

What is easier than the college president looking out his window?

I don't know when OIT started its large geothermal database but it is not a new kid on the block. It has the granddaddy of distributed geothermal databases.

"It is much easier for residential customer to take the risk and invest in solar on the rooftop (even if the pay back isn't as fast as geothermal) - Solar PV rooftop is much easier to see that you might be making a difference."

I don't know where you get your standard 4km of drilling but we piped hot water into our home from a hot spring when I was a child in Oregon. We were forced to have a well in New York instead of using the cold spring outside the house by your government. People used to come from miles around to get the spring water. The water well while rather deep is not remotely 4KM deep and there was the chance we would get sulfur water like our neighbors, who use our spring as their own.

Certainly most people don't live near a hot spring (nor a rattlesnake nursery) and rooftop PV is more convenient but we like to have heat and lights on at night when the sun isn't shining. It gets both cold and dark here.

"Oregon has done a relatively detailed geothermal study of their own state."

That's somewhat better than when Oregon banned all geothermal power development on federal lands for decades and chased the largest producer of geothermal power from the state and our shores. That was Chevron, to be specific, which has some - er, other businesses.

No "detailed" statewide study determined the hillside powering the OIT campus was feasible for geothermal power.

Oregon is a leader today in the more efficacious forms of renewable power but it took overturning decades of wrongheaded environmentalism. While the state had once banned geothermal development in the most propitious areas, it was using the scenic Abert Lake running alongside the spectacular Abert Rim for a nuclear waste dump in the area where I was born.

When I posted the facts years ago, I was wildly attacked by the usual crowd defending the honor of the state.

No state is beyond reproach, even the most beautiful and splendid state in all the land to this totally unbiased observer. :-)

The indications for the feasibility of developing the geothermal potential of the "magic pond" were superior to those of the hillside facing OIT. Water in small lakes and ponds is known to freeze over in the winter in Vermont.

"I think geothermal scales up better than it scales down."

I could hardly disagree more.

The massive upfront capital, high risk and lengthy development period that even encourages untoward haste of large projects have inhibited geothermal power development. Return on small scale heat and power is quick, relatively sure and cheap by comparison.

Prospecting for potential geothermal is a little easier than it was in the early years when OIT started looking at geothermal. The US government has databases available for almost everything. Including a geoprospecting database.

http://maps.nrel.gov/gt_prospector

And if you need help deciding on which technology might work...

http://www.nrel.gov/geothermal/

The only thing missing is the $ and investors to build out the various projects.

And of course that's where net metering and solar come back together... It is much easier for residential customer to take the risk and invest in solar on the rooftop (even if the pay back isn't as fast as geothermal) - Solar PV rooftop is much easier to see that you might be making a difference. For most of the geothermal electrical projects they are community sized or larger.

In general, I think geothermal scales up better than it scales down. Solar PV can work on a smaller scale because you can be closer to the actual points of use. And of course it would be a little difficult for every other house to drill their own wells down 4Km for the In/out wells -- on small lots.

Oregon has done a relatively detailed geothermal study of their own state. I would not be adverse to Virginia doing the same and if they found some good spots, developing them would be the smart thing to do, but the data available today, so far is not so good.

A "magic pond" in Vermont that did not freeze in winter was much the same as the side of a hill in Klamath Falls, OR, where the snow melted early.

Vermonters chose not to look because everybody knows that there is no geothermal in Vermont. A college president at OIT in Oregon, that has long maintained a data base on distributed geothermal potential, decided to make OIT the only 100% geothermally powered campus in the world because Klamath Falls has long been a hotbed of low temperature geothermal development.

The difference was attitude, not indications. Geothermal prospecting instrumentation and knowledge is very primitive. We are little advanced over a time in oil prospecting when prospectors looked for oil leaking on the ground.

I didn't think you needed magma temperatures, but I did think you needed 150-200c differences, if you only need 60-70c difference then we only have to drill down about 4 km near Suffolk, more in the rest of Virginia.

However, I can see the potential use in other areas and perhaps that can be used near hot springs without ruining the hot springs themselves.

I don't follow geothermal as much because not practical for my personal use and I can't afford the investment myself for larger, but I do like the technology where practical. 4-4.5km is reasonable depths to drill from my understanding.

Terry, There might be diamonds in those holes... who knows, put enough CO2 down the wells, put it under pressure, a little heat, perhaps the correct in well chemistry and we might start seeing new diamond mines. :-)

Looks like we may need to buy stock in companies that produce R744 refrigerant :-)

I think it most unlikely anything will come of that because of extreme difficulty dealing with acidity of the CO2 but what the heck? It's only money. :-)

The line between ground source heat and power is becoming more and more indistinct. Some geothermally heated complexes are now beginning to produce power. Lightning Dock, NM, is a model of the movement.

Longwatcher, The point that Terry has been making is that you do not need a high thermal potential for geothermal electrical production. Newer techniques and methods are now available that allow regions that would have never been considered to produce electricity at a price that is lower than many other renewables. Heat from magma IS NOT required for these geothermal generators, 60-70C can produce power. In the low temp geothermal generators often use a closed loop for water (pump up and down the same amount) and an heat exchanger that causes a different fluid to boil and produce the steam for turbines. That second fluid could be R-134, it could be butane, or it could be ammonia... but you do not need the high temps like you've seen in Nevada to run the generators.

Terry,
We really should be in another topic on this, but some hot springs come from very deep in the ground (as in several miles/kilometers). Like the ones in the Appalachians mentioned. The hot water vent itself may be limited to a very small area of inches. As I mentioned you will likely have to pick if you want it for a power source or for a tourist source because likely in order to use it for power you are going to have to ruin it for tourism. It could still be used for providing "mineral waters", but the spring itself would have to be converted for power. Also you will be limited to the amount of heat exchange by the flow of the hot water, although the temperature of the water coming out will be a modifier on that. I would rather we keep them for tourist spots given the limited utility, but wouldn't mind it if one or two are usable for both.

Papua New Guinea is in the ring of fire and is very active geologically, so the magma is very close to the surface - in some cases closer then it is in western USA, but that does not help Virginia.

I think the only geothermal we should plan on in Virginia is the relatively short depth Geothermal heating/cooling (which works very well in Virginia, not the deep depth needed for geothermal power.

For trivia, I have driven by some of the geothermal rigs near Reno (my mother lives in Fallon. NV and I fly into Reno). The crust is fairly thin there and has a high temperature gradient in the area making it an excellent choice for geothermal. But again it is not Virginia.

It is likely that your local electrical utility provider has a web site that could be helpful in answering a few of your questions. If your in PG&E's territory you can look at some scenarios via their web site- http://pge.cleanpowerestimator.com/sites/pge/pge.aspx .

The larger PV manufacturers also have web sites that let potential customers estimate the output of a PV system based on your zip code and a few installation details. They also let you select the electric rate structure that you currently have, or one you might want to move to, to look at some of the economic benefits that would be associated with a PV system. I have found Sharp's web site to be helpful in the past when looking at alternatives in regards to system size and the benefits that can be accrued with going with PV http://sharpusa.cleanpowerestimator.com/sharpusa.htm

John, that really becomes an engineer/finance question that is probably beyond the scope of the original blog topic. "Net metering debate". Also there is a lot of information you need specifics about the house, shading, location, types of cells, inverters, weather conditions, etc.

That being said, your easiest starting point is to look PVWatts on the NREL site. Plug in the infor for your location and array and calculate expected production for a year. PVWatts will use your location to look up the average electric rates, it calculates the value of the electricity you produce over the year. You can then compare your lease cost against the current value of the electricity. Electric rates MIGHT climb at 3%/yr so you could perhaps chart out over twenty years what the value of the electricity might be project as... and see where you might have a break even point with the lease costs.

Again that is really something probably for some other forum -- not necessarily on topic for the original story by James Montgomery.

I have a 10.24 KW DC PV system that cost me a net $0.91 per watt for a 20 year prepaid lease. I won't bother you with more details then are necessary, but seeing there are obviously a number of savvy energy buffs on this thread, can anyone help me determine what a realistic ROI on the system is? My previous 12 month bill averaged $200/month.

I sized the system to provide about 85% of my load, but find I am producing over 100%. Since I understand the panels alone cost around $1.15 a watt to produce, it seems like I got a good deal. I realize this is somewhat off the subject, but I would really appreciate some help.

How can you have hot springs without a heat source? What happened with that temperature gradient?

Geothermal prospecting is very primitive and megathinkers focus on megaprospects but companies are even selling mobile geothermal devices to mine owners.

>October 7, 2009

RENO, Nev., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/—Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, in conjunction with Chena Power LLC in Alaska and the U.S. Department of Energy, demonstrated a mobile geothermal power generation unit at the 2009 Geothermal Energy Expo in Reno, Nev. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) company.<

Papua New Guinea got put on the geothermal map when a gold miner decided to try geothermal power instead of diesel for power. Today geothermal power is a big deal in Papua New Guinea as with many poor countries, unlike the U.S. which prefers to screw around with the expensive unreliables, wind and solar.

"lets stick to Geothermal in the western 1/3 of the USA where it is practical."

I would rather go where it's cheap, reliable and available rather than overhyped.

Rather than the most expensive, low temperature geothermal may be the cheapest of all energy sources. Chena is hoping to reduce costs to about one cents/kwhr.

"if I remember correctly Landau was having minor quakes as a result of that geothermal facility."

Geothermal power plants are typically built in earthquake-prone zones and, naturally, get blamed for earthquakes. I don't think there is any real doubt that Landau, an EGS project by the amateurs at AltaRock, was responsible for magnitude 3 quakes in an area where there should probably be no drilling at all.

True disasters do happen, like the Blue Lagoon in Iceland :-)

http://tinyurl.com/d23buvy

Instead of a huge attraction, another geothermal blowout could be a true disaster as happens with any drilling but low temperature geothermal need not even involve drilling. I am not sure if the pioneer low temp installation in Birdville, Australia, had any drilling but that to follow currently will be very shallow, probably no deeper than the water well we depend on. Meanwhile the granddaddy of all EGS projects currently active continues on and on and on. In one of the driest areas on earth, the Australian Outback, it will depend on a large supply of water in any case. With EGS, input water tends to be like a kid's boomerang - it don't come back.

We both agree that all forms of energy, and lack of energy supply as well, have some problems. But about those with the least money and fewest bought supporters, you rarely hear the advantages while problems are widely broadcast. It's the American Way. :-)

Terry,
I had to do a little research first. Gen. Washinton's Property mentioned is in WEST Virginia, not the commonwealth of Virginia. And heating water with natural gas is not in my opinion geo-thermal, it is fossil fuel heating.

Virginia has one small area (south of the Hampton Roads area that is marginal for geo-thermal power only because of temperature gradient, but you would still have to drill down farther then in the western part of the USA to get the same benefit. There are also some hot springs in the area around Roanoke, VA, but then it becomes a choice between tourism/environment and energy generation, because to tap a hot spring, you have to tap THE hot spring. Any kind of drilling is going to require likely a 7km depth in Virginia and then only in select areas, other areas would require deeper wells likely in excess of 10km.

As I said not practical for Virginia. West Virginia has one nice area if you are willing to drill down about 6.5km. Otherwise lets stick to Geothermal in the western 1/3 of the USA where it is practical. Solar and Wind are more practical for Virginia and wind is best in only a few areas as well although much larger areas then geothermal.

Terry, bad is relative. When you have a basic rate of 0.28EU/KWhr plus a FIT that pays a bonus - general national and community support, then "low temperature geothermal" can be very attractive. Still they've had some minor problems - if I remember correctly Landau was having minor quakes as a result of that geothermal facility.

And someplace in that area I believe one of the geothermal plants sunk the wells through layers of chalk -- which ummm took on water in ways they had not expected... water quality problems and ground surface rising...

I am not against geothermal -- we need it -- and in more quantity, but at same time geothermal doesn't have to deal with the net metering debate thanks in part to PURPA. And of course it does help when $/KWhr for geothermal at scale is < $0.04/KWhr...

EVmc, Tax payers have paid for some grid costs - NOT all grid infrastructure. Most of the early electrical work was done via private investment. In (USA) during the 1920's and 1930's, the US tax payers invested significantly to "electrify" the country. Still in most large cities the distribution system was privately owned. Transmission lines and the big hydro dams were paid back through the electrical rates charged for the electricity used AND moved on the grid.

While tax payer money may have (and continue) to provide working capital for some generation and transmission lines - the utilities do pay for the use. AND those contracts for the lines include fee that the utilities must pay to cover the cost of "power balancing".

The argument of the utilities against metering is that -- utilities must pay all those costs - forecasting weeks, months and sometimes years in advance - only to have small producers opt out, or expect the local utility to "move their excess" at the same rate that they charge others for the electricity. I would agree with the utilities that they would be significantly disadvantaged IF the energy a small residential customer was producing was truly moving across the country. In most cases the power produced by the small customers NEVER moves beyond a few kilometers from the point of generation. On the other hand - small producers do indeed easy the demand on the local neighborhood grids.

If utilities want to recover the "unfair" costs that they believe net metering customers add - I would argue that net metering customers should also ask that vacate vacation home customers pay more AS WELL as the large sports complexes that have SIGNIFICANT peak loads when in operation. It is the large peaks that require the build out of the grid and transmission lines -- and that is often a significant portion of the local residential electric rate.

"In other notes, Geothermal (at least the power producing kind) is not practical in Virginia (earth's crust too thick)."

That's nonsense.

>Oil and Gas Resources in Virginia

The "burning springs" of the Kanawha River, where natural gas escaped from underground and occasionally caught fire, demonstrated the presence of hydrocarbons in Virginia. George Washington, who always had an eye for valuable real estate, acquired some of the springs in 1775.

In the 1840's, the natural gas was used to boil saline water from nearby wells to produce salt, in what was the first commercial use of natural gas in the United States. In 1860, Virginia's first oil wells were drilled near another nearby burning spring to produce "rock oil" or petroleum. (Those springs became part of West Virginia in 1863.)1

Surface oil seeps, where petroleum leaked to the surface, also alerted people to hydrocarbons in Lee County, where Virginia's two oil fields are located. The Rose Hill field opened in 1942, and the Ben Hur field was developed in 1963 (and expanded to Fleenortown in 1981). Oil comes from a 400-500 foot thick layer of the Trenton Limestone, dating back to the Ordivician Period about 450 million years ago. Depth of the wells range from 1,810 feet to 4,925 feet.2

Oil may also be collected when it condenses in gas wells.<

http://virginiaplaces.org/energy/oil.html

Every oil and gas well, producing and depleted, is a potential geothermal power producer from the great quantities of hot water produced.

Terry, If you haven't seen them, look for the IEA Geothermal reports. They can explain some of the questions you had about the 90+ low grade assets. But low grade thermal assets are entirely bad in Europe, they use much more district heating for which lower grade thermal assets can work fine. That is one of the things about the US that we have missed --- thinking in KW only not Joules.

From IEA (13th Annual Geothermal Energy chapter 9) "The average of the geothermal gradient in Germany is 30oC/km and quiet low for deep geothermal applications. Only in certain regions like the upper Rhine rift valley and the German Molasse basin higher geothermal gradients occur. Therefore deep drilling down to 3000 – 4000 m is necessary to reach temperature above 100oC for with electricity generation. Associated with this fact are high drilling costs which influence the economic success. Further constraints are the finding risks for such depths and the complicate geological structures in some regions of interest. In the northern basin of Germany the geothermal sources have a high salinity. Currently the availability of drilling rigs is poor due to the huge demand of oil industry. The prices are consequently high for drilling and some project are being postponed."

1. @dennis-heidner, note we recently went through a challenge of Virginia Electric's (Dominion) tariff proposal (I was there on Tuesday). Both Dominion and the State Corporation Commision (SCC) basically ignored Austin Energy's Study as not applicable to Virginia (because it wasn't done in Virginia).

2. I was okay with the results of the SCC only because they finally clarified (multiple times) that the current Net Metering customers would not be affected and that was the part that affected me personally. I prefer Net Metering to Dominion's tariff plan. The biggest problem with it, is you lose the SRECs.

Interestingly, Dominion put the value of a SREC under their plan at $110, however because of the way the plan is set up it real value would be less then $40 and potentially decreasing over time.

3. I use 25 years as the minimum life expectancy of my panels and 40 years as the actual expected life before needing replacement. During that time frame I expect to lose 1-2 panels and have to reconfigure the system for that and I expect at least one if not two inverter replacements. If it makes it past 40 years, it will most likely outlive me as I will be 90 YO at the time. Short of the Zombie Apocalypse I expect technology to be completely different by that time with energy storage problems solved and panels producing at least 6x as much daily as they do now.

My PV panels are located in a fairly ideal location in Northern CA to maximize the potential (capacity factor) of a PV system. My 6.12 Kw (sts rated system) has faithfully produced 9200 Kwh/year (+/- 300 kwh for year to year variation in sun, snow, and system degradation) for 6 and a half years. So for every additional Kw I install I expect (9200kwh/6.12 kw) to generate 1503 kwh. If I pay $4.5 (before rebates and tax credits) a watt for some new generation (sts rating) each Kwh will cost me what? If I pay $4500- 1500 tax credit taken in year 1= $3000.00 Kw how should I allocate the three thousand dollars I paid to get to what it costs for my new generation?

Over 20 years the new Kw of PV will generate 1503 kwh *20= 30000 kwh. A first approximation of my costs would be $3000/30000 kwh generated= $.10 kwh. As I expect to have to replace the inverter after about 10 years or so I should really come up with some way to capture the ongoing R&R costs of the system. In any case it would increase my true costs. As I could of used the $3000.00 for another home improvement project I really should include some opportunity cost factor in my calculation (say a 5 to 6% cost of capital rate). Without going through all the math I would SWAG it that my costs for a new kwh would be in the $.13 to $.14 per kwh range when I pay $4500 (-1500 in tax credits) for a new Kw of PV (sts rated) generation.

>Dennis -Yes the solar lease companies are a power provider disguised as a solar company
Power provider disguised as a lease
> John - DIY system at $2.20 watt produce your own power for 3 cents Kwh
In CA company install is at $4.50 watt produce your own power for 6 cents Kwh
Why would anyone get a lease at 16 cents kwh, a rip

>calculate that net metering's annuals benefits to ratepayers outweigh costs
Answer to Question is Yes Net metering should benefits ratepayers
Utilities cost are mostly subsidized by ratepayers, tax payer
Tax payers paid for grid
Tax payers paid for smart meters was paid for with federal tax dollars not by utility
Taxpayers paid for Nuke plants 50% of federal loans for nuke plants was never paid back
Rate payer pays decommission, taxpayer pays for insurance not utility
Hey remember San Bruno PG&E gas pipeline explosion?
The year before PG&E charged Repairs then never made repairs put money in pocket
Now charging ratepayers again!
It used to be utilities were subsidized because of that cost to ratepayer was kept to a reasonable price
Now still subsidized and charge us the highest charge they can
We used to get a deal for subsidizing utility now we get no deal

As an FYI the lease agreement I reviewed was to replace electrical energy generated and distributed from SMUD, and the contract between the homeowner and Solar City had a few interesting clauses:

1) A requirement that the homeowner obtain a Net Metering rate structure if requested by the lease holder.

2) A note that any state, or local rebates are the property of the lease holder.

3) A note that states that any carbon offsets, or credits that accrue from the system are the property of the lease holder (vs. say SMUD, the homeowner, or even CARB as alternatives). As the floor price for our carbon market (AB 32 rules put in place by CARB) starts to increase these offsets may actually have some value.

4) The homeowner was required to honor the contract for the 20 year time frame. If he/she sold the home for any reason he had the choice of either 1) paying FMV for the system, 2) Convincing the new owner of the home of the value of the contract so that they would take over the lease for the duration of the contract and 3) a really odd option of moving the system to a new location- I wonder what this option would cost to accomplish- say $3 Kw: INSANE option from my perspective.

The big three service providers, as well as CPUC and the legislature hope like all get out that the economy in the state improves to the point that the percentage of billing meters that qualify for the CARE rate decreases (26% of PG&E's customers in last years rate design filing) so that the costs of service for the residential market can be spread out a bit more. If things don't improve how the increased costs are going to get allocated are going to be a bit heated- to say the least!

Very much appreciate your addressing real issues though I disagree with some claims - certainly not that every energy source has problems. That is obviously true.

Geothermal:

"Water inflow's might be natural (Iceland) or reused waste water (The Geysers)"

In fact, waste water (any water would do) was utilized at The Geysers to solve a problem created by decades of vampire management. Hot water mined instead of heat. From an often faulty recall, only 35% of water is reinjected today. Iceland has exactly the same problems and has shown the way with distributed processing at Husavik, even utilizing a trash burner to add heat to tepid geothermal waters. The record busting low temperature effort at Chena, Alaska, is the only production of geothermal power in Alaska to date though Alaska has the greatest high temperature assets of any state.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the claim that distributed geothermal is geographically limited. A European conference put the low temp assets at some 90%+ greater than high temperature assets. [What exactly that meant and backup research I have been unable to relocate.] When MIT went hog wild over EGS, a graduate student at MIT did a study of low temp resources that are abundant everywhere. when I went back to look for his study at Warm Springs Indian Reservation, I found a vast expansion of efforts to utilize a formerly neglected KGR (Known Geothermal Resource) with lots of hot water found. The same is true of Raser Industries' misbegotten initial project that bankrupted the company. The dunce that probably did the hurt to Ormat in perhaps the greatest geothermal prospect area in the world nearly bankrupted a new company with formerly huge prospects - Ram Power named for the culprit.

I could go on endlessly if allowed and if boredom could be overcome by facts but I think you get the idea.

It would seem that utilities installing solar on their customer's roofs is the best of all worlds. The utility would still have income from the financing of these installations and the building owner would eventually own the system. The homeowner benefits in using the power from the installation first, reducing their normal electric bill while the added loan payment on their bill goes towards paying off their system. Not sure why anyone is willing to pay 0.162 per kWh on these lease systems. Cost per watt with on panel storage is down to $2.20 per watt. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/psida-diy-rooftop-pvac-600-testbed-verification/x/2228668

Warren, The German FIT for solar (and wind) has only been successful because it provided investment grade opportunities backed by the national laws AND combined with VERY high electrical rates. The average rate (USD) was about $0.32/KWhr in 2012. The original FIT was nearly $0.70 (rough conversions EU to $). The result is a signficant deployment of solar anywhere it would fit -- barns, sheds, houses, old industrial plants, you name it. * As they built solar the price for the FIT 'degressed' on a schedule that was intended to encourage early adoption -- and promote efficiency on the part of the installers. As of April 2012 the FIT was reduced to 90% of the retail rate in attempt to promote self consumption. * Germany didn't offer have net metering and the US style investment tax credits would violate EC law. FIT is a method that worked for Germany - but it would not necessarily work in all 50 US states. Remember that the German FIT works by adding a tariff charge to ALL rate payers - even those without solar. The producers are then paid from the collected FIT. A separate renewable energy transmission charge is added to all the electric bills. Over the last couple of years the cost/KWhr has climbed signficantly as the FIT bill is now coming due... and the FIT rate of an individual producer is guaranteed for 20 YEARS. * The $0.1692KW/hr rate described above (by 6.12 STS) would seem an unbelievable fantasy to many Germans -- but here in the US it is still above the market rate for many parts of the country. East of the Cascade Mountain ranges in Washington State - the rates are below $0.05/KWhr (roughly). West of the mountains the price might be $0.09/KWhr... the difference is the transmission and distribution cost.

6.12 STS kw, You have pretty much described what I personally believe is really behind the utility concerns with net metering.

A third party company (sunpower, solarcity, etc) are able to install lots of solar on roofs, take the investment credit, collect production credits that might exist, while acting in effect (from PG&E's view) as an unregulated utility charging $0.162/KWhr for twenty years. But depending on that build out (and reliability) of the local distribution system. I suspect the utilities view this as another company abusing a loophole in state laws and adding to the utility costs. Unfortunately the rhetoric doesn't differentiate between the third party companies and the small residential owner that has invested their own capital.

The power utilities could provide the same business and offered a similar deal. (Perhaps Califorina law prohibits it?) Austin Energy in Texas was pretty creative in offering a package to their customers. (search for Austin Energy Solar). They offer(ed) incentives which required the houses to meet a standard energy efficiency, then paid a large share of the $/watt up front - in exchange the long term energy produced by the houses at an annually recalculated "value of solar rate." A win win for both the customer and Austin Energy.

Terry, Good point about geothermal - it is underutilized. But it is also not without its problems (all energy sources have gotcha's!) You need enough water inflow to ensure a sustainable steam production. Water inflow's might be natural (Iceland) or reused waste water (The Geysers). If you do not provide sufficient inflow the steam output drops. * Not all geographic locations are perfect for geothermal without enhancement (rock fracturing). Water injection and the steam can migrate and damage aquafiers or other geologic structures. * Not all prospected geothermal wells are productive (Ormat just took $230million charge on profits). Then there is the impact assessments, capital costs and time to build. Geothermal is very good, but it isn't something that can be widely distributed. * Forbes (Jan 9, 2013)reported earlier this year -- that as the cost of producing electricity is dropping (natural gas) the cost of moving it (transmission lines) is rising. With 75% of the transmission lines are 25 years and older, centralized energy production implies added cost to modernize the grid -- much faster. Decentralized residential solar - doesn't eliminate the need to modernize the transmission lines - but it can buy some time. * Large scale tidal power is still a dream, lots of work being done - but very few full scale utility projects. Waste biomass as fuel is common in Europe, capturing the biogas and generating power is now pretty common - but also not without problems. At issue is that all power generations have gotcha's... centralized sources need transmission capability. * The original topic was 'Net metering debate rages', we are going off topic by spending too much time on alternative energy sources.

A friend recently shared a PV lease agreement with me. The rational for the size of the system installed wasn't denoted but it sure seems like generating 70% of your yearly usage with PV from a leased system at a cost $.162kwh for 20 years wasn't in the best interest of the homeowner. Although with the cost of PV hardware dropping the choice of self generation with PV is becoming a viable alternative for mid income folks in the residential market as well as the commercial market.

The shake out in the PV industry is leading to lots of options on how to obtain the hardware. A local auction house just finished a sale of PV equipment ranging from full 5 Kw systems ($7500 plus 13% fee) to single panels. http://www.northstateauctions.com/auction/all/id/62

I am sure PG&E, or any utility, is getting a bit concerned with how they are going to allocate their current fixed costs, and their expected increased costs to meet the system wide 33%RES, in the future with more residents and business making the decision to self generate some of their electrical energy needs.

This article indicates that the utilities are starting to panic. The good news is that they recognize that they re about to be disintermediated and fall into a backup power role. The OBVIOUS utility response should be to own the rooftop solar, but I don't see that happening anywhere. Remember, the original intent of establishing the utilities was to provide an entity with low cost of capital via guaranteed revenues. the utilities better get ahead of the wave or they will be washed away by it.

This discussion is long over due. There have been a lot of studies done by USDOE (about 19 years ago) and by EPRI that have put rationalized values of the the last kWh over the last mile - considering these studies as a part of this discussion would help.
There is also the price (cost) of reliability - the EDC's have an obligation to provide guaranteed service reliability in order that they can have their franchise. This number is something like 99.9%. Technically, if they fon't maintain this level of service, they could lose their franchise. As evidenced by the power outages on the ease coast (and the time to recover full service), the EDC's have to invest considerable dollars, which even if they do, will get paid by the rate payers. There isa cost effective alternative if distributed storage is incoporated, which can also provide for demand side management, and the associated benefits. No new battery technologies are needed to deliver an effective and affordable solaution.
I would like to suggest that this consideration be included in the net metering discussion.

This is why a Feed-In-Tariff should be considered. It is a win-win and after a certain term the generation source couples with the value of the enviromental attributes should sink or swim. Our little rural electric cooperative offers 2 incentive rates. One is a modified FIT and the other is a flat rate based of the standard retail rate. We consider these both incentive rates with separate meters and a 10 year term. This wheel has already been invented in Germany so why are we supporting net-metering when because of it you can't tax consumption and you can't indentify and incent the RE generators. Like I said a FIT is a win-win-win for customer, utility, and government. Go to our website at wwww.feckalona.com and review the member packet. We can explode this sector and create jobs with the right ideas.

"Anonymous - try devising an off grid heat pump based system as you suggested in northern climates such as Alaska, or regions that have climates that are VERY SEASONAL."

I suggested no such thing.

Chena, northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska, where it gets very cold keeps its ice museum frozen in summer with tepid waters little warmer than a cup of tea. Husavik, Iceland, uses a trash burning facility to add heat to warm waters. Geothermal utilities can be used for cooling as well as heating and some geothermal facilities that have only used heating in the past are beginning to generate power. One is Lightning Dock, NM. More sentimentally, Klamath Falls, OR, [where I misspent my youth] pioneered in geothermal heating and much more and is now generating power.

Trash and garbage is generated daily by humans, not to mention certain elimination functions. You prefer landfills, heated atmosphere, poisoned streams and lakes and oceans, etc. to sanitary disposal?

Waste heat and tidal power are baseload. OTEC may be nearing feasibility - or just a dream.

Why not leave denial to fossil fuel folk?

Best, Terry

ANONYMOUS
February 15, 2013

Why use the grid at all? With a PV powered heat pump you can store chilled water in the summer for cooling after sundown with heat recovery from the compressor for hot water. In winter, the heat pump is used to store hot water for heating. Additional heat can be produced by solar thermal collectors.

Only a small amount of battery storage would be required to run lights, electronics, small fans and small pumps. That way you can leave the grid to the polluters.

Anonymous - try devising an off grid heat pump based system as you suggested in northern climates such as Alaska, or regions that have climates that are VERY SEASONAL. The battery backup system often needs to be quite large. You can go off grid if you a good combination of renewables -- solar, wind, or small scale hydro. But heat pumps and battery grid based systems do not survive for long. (not when you are using for heating AND cooling).

Renewable baseload is limited! Most of the low impacting hydro in the western part of the US has already been developed. In the west additional dams can mean the loss of wild life habitat, submerging small towns and villages, redevelopment of roads and rails. Few along the lower Missouri river would agree to it being dammed to provide power for Chicago, Denver, or Boston.

* Yes, in some parts of the world it appears to be in ample supply -- but than can easily change in drought conditions. The outage in India last summer is an example of dependence on hydro for baseload generation. With the drought, the demand for irrigation and weak grid administration - one region tripped off other regions -- bringing down BOTH coal and nuclear generation.

* Solar and wind help diversify the energy production adding more flexibility to the electric grid. Solar and wind can easily compliment other renewables.

* Central power generation means long transmission lines, and power losses associated with the long lines. As demand grows -- it can require more lines and wider right of ways. If the access for the transmission lines do not already exist, well it can mean acquiring the use of the land through some form of legal process.

* PG&E likes to argue that solar is a rich mans toy and it raises the cost for low income customers - but one of the surprising facts is the percentage of low/middle income customers in California are installing solar is higher than the upper income. Families discovered that they can put solar on their roofs with the third party installers at nearly zero cost (sunpower solarcity, etc).

* While the wires and transformers are property of the utilities - the right of way and streets generally belong to the local communities, and the members of those communities choose solar.

PG&E and other utilities that argue net metering is an unfair subsidy by not requiring customers to pay for the capacity build out for possible peak periods - should also considering higher connection fees for vacation homes, lights for sports fields that are only used during peak hours. And then there are the retail business rates that make 'subsidies by net metering' look very small. Think 24 hour sports fitness centers with lights on at all times and high ventilation requirements - but with discounted retail electric rates. ** PG&E and other utilities remind us that they need to recover their capital expenditures - but that is also true of the solar PV customers -- they also have made capital investments and their payback is in part through the net metering of the power they generate. ** The installed PV base can help bring up the neighborhood power factor in California -- helping to offset the many inductive loads caused by air conditioning, pool pumps and refrigerators. It also eases the strain on the neighborhood distribution transformers - extending their lives by easing the peak daytime electrical load off them. (air conditioners, pool pumps, etc). ** Residential PV customers tend to be quite sensitive about the energy they produce. They are aware of the cost and quite often are also the early adopters for some extreme energy efficiency improvements. E.g. CFL and LED's every where... solar hot water, low electrical needs. ** Perhaps owners of certified Passive Houses need to be concerned also, their monthly energy use may also be so low as to not create the expected revenue for the utility...

I pay $6.00 a month to PG&E even though I am a net metering customer. I would like to ask Ms. Burt to her face where this money is going. According to my solar bill, it is going to T&D costs, nuclear decomissioning, and my local municipal utility tax. Is the bill lying? What is going on here???

Add Your Comments

Jim is Contributing Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was associate editor for Solid State Technology and Photovoltaics World, and has covered semiconductor manufacturing and related industries,...